Pages

Wednesday, 20 February 2013

'Richard III and Other Dead Kings' by A L Berridge

It seems you can pick up bits of dead kings just about
anywhere now. We’re all still buzzing with the discovery of Richard III under a
Leicester car park, but over the last thirteen years in France they’ve managed
to identify the head of Henri IV, the blood of Louis XVI, and the heart of
Louis XVII, with an added bonus in the hair of Marie Antoinette. Honestly, it’s
enough to make you want to search the attic.

Richard III

Yet outside
the scientific and historical worlds these discoveries haven’t been greeted
with the same excitement as our own ‘Richard Crookback’ - and what I want to know is why. I'm a Francophile myself, I'm interested in all those kings, but there's something special about the Richard III discovery that sets it apart.

What is it?

The heart of Louis XVII is at least as good a story, and by far the most tragic. He was
the son of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, the little Dauphin who was
imprisoned in the Temple under the name ‘Louis Capet’ and died there of
tuberculosis at just ten years old. He had been kept in in a darkened cell from
the age of eight, with no-one to wash or clean up after him, and was degraded
by being forced to sign a document confessing to incest with his murdered
mother. He probably never knew his parents had been guillotined and he was the
uncrowned King of France.

The Dauphin - Louis XVII

But did he really die that lonely prison death? Was the wracked
little body the doctors recorded as being covered in sores and tumours really
his? Perhaps it’s because the child’s treatment was so unbearable that rumours
abounded of his secret escape, and of the substitution of a dying pauper for
the wretched king. Baroness Orczy even wrote the novel ‘Eldorado’, in which the
Scarlet Pimpernel himself rescued the child, and part of me still wants to
believe it.

Some facts supported the theory. A prison guard called ‘Simon
the Shoemaker’ quit his job in 1794, and his widow later claimed he had smuggled the Dauphin to safety in a laundry basket. The story was given credence when in 1894 the coffin of the supposed Dauphin was exhumed and found to
contain the body of a man aged between 18 and 20. True, the body had already been moved once when it was rescued from
its mass grave, but still the questions remained.

Heart of Louis XVII - Associated Press

Not any more. One particular relic had been making the
rounds for centuries, and was even offered to Louis XVIII on the restoration of
the monarchy – the supposed heart of the Dauphin, which had been secretly removed
during the autopsy by Dr Philippe-Jean Pelletan, who ‘wrapped it in my handkerchief
and put it in my pocket without being seen’. Even the relic's story is full of incident. Pelletan kept it in alcohol in a jar on his bookcase, but as the
alcohol dried out the heart grew desiccated. In 1810 it was stolen, but when
the thief contracted tuberculosis himself he repented, and his widow restored
it to the doctor. In 1828 Pelletan gave it to the archbishop of Paris, but the
palace was vandalised in the July Revolution, the crystal container was
smashed, and the heart was finally discovered buried in a pile of sand. But
still it survived, and in 2000 scientists finally decided to put it to the test
of DNA.

There were obviously no living
descendants – but there was a dead ancestor. The hair of Marie Antoinette had
also survived in the form of cuttings taken when she was a child in Austria,
and when the two were compared the result was pretty conclusive. The chief
scientist, Jean-Jacques Cassiman, was far too cautious to say definitely that
the heart was that of Louis XVII – only that he was descended from Marie
Antoinette. The child’s heart has finally been removed from public display, and
been buried at the Saint-Denis basilica near the graves of his parents.

Henri IV and Louis XVI have had a sober time in comparison, but their stories too are worth considering. Henri
IV fell victim to the same fate as poor Cardinal Richelieu, being dug up and
decapitated during the French Revolution, and his head carried away to form
part of a private collection. It was at least kept in a nice padded box, and
over the years has changed hands many times, but (like Richelieu’s) it was
mummified, and it is still faintly possible to see traces of a face.

Henri IV reconstructed face

In 2010 scientists set to work identifying that face. They
were fortunate to have three clues to go on: a healed facial wound, a lesion
near his nose – and a pierced ear. The less squeamish can see a video of all
this here, but this picture gives at least a general idea.

Suggestive certainly, but nothing is definite these days
without DNA. Short of digging up poor Louis XVII’s heart yet again, it was hard
to see where a possible match could be found – until someone thought of this.

It’s perhaps the oddest of all of them. This gourd has been
in the possession of an Italian family for more than a century, and what they
found intriguing was the inscription partially shown below, which translates as
follows: ‘In the 21st of January this year Maximilien Bourdaloue soaked his
handkerchief in the blood of Louis XVI after his decapitation… When it was
congealed, he put it in this gourd and gave it to me for two banknotes of ten francs
each.’

Handkerchiefs are clearly less durable than the blood of
kings, and there was no sign of such a thing when in 2011 the gourd was lent to
the University of Bologna for testing. There was, however, a sticky residue,
and when geneticists from Bologna and Barcelona examined it they found it
to be blood of a male of the right age and antiquity, who was also a ‘heterozygote’ - a compatible form for a person with blue eyes. The genetic pattern
itself was found to be extremely rare (scientists among us can find a more
intelligent description here), and it would be hard to find anything like a
match.

Enter (in its box) the head of Henri IV.

(I was going to include a picture, but it's really too gruesome for a family blog. The curious can see one here.)

Blood and head were
both tested for DNA, and the results made headlines. From this BBC site: They ‘share
a genetic heritage passed on through the paternal line,” forensic pathologist
Philippe Charlier told AFP. “They have a direct link to one another through
their fathers. One could say that there is absolutely no doubt any more.’
Voila. Two kings confirmed for the price of one.

Interesting stories? To a French fanatic like me they're
utterly fascinating, but still somehow not up to the
standard of Richard III. I was enthralled by the French discoveries, but when I
watched the documentary about the finding of Richard III I cried.

So why? Why? What is it about the discovery at Leicester that’s
so special?

Is it age? Richard III was already history when Henri IV was
on the throne, and to whippersnappers like Louis XVI and XVII he was ancient
history at that. But I don’t think that’s the answer. If it’s age that excites
us we can look at these 27 Anglo-Saxon skeletons discovered last year on
Salisbury Plain. Heck, we can look at this one exhumed in South Africa that’s
estimated at 2 million years old. It’s far, far more historically significant –
but it doesn’t make me cry.

Neither do Egyptian mummies, come to that. They’re kings,
they’ve been dead even longer, but maybe it’s almost too long. They lack
significance dead because we have no sense of them alive. The portraits are too
stylized to be meaningful, and if someone says the word ‘Tutankhamun’ I think
immediately of either a gold mask or something dead in bandages. An Egyptian
specialist would be horrified by that, but I suspect it’s a common layman’s
view.

Then is it the mystery? As an ardent Ricardian and great fan
of Josephine Tey, I’m all for anything that will smash the Shakespeare/Thomas
More myth and clear Richard III’s name – but his skeleton won’t do that. We’ve
learned a bit about scoliosis and the hunchback, but whether or not he killed
the Princes in the Tower – not so much. There’s far more mystery solved in the
case of Louis XVII than there is with poor Richard.

Is it the tragedy? The horrible details of post-mortem
injuries, the reality of that lonely grave for a man who should have had a
state funeral? It’s part of it, I think, and I’m warmed by the prospect
of the body finally being given the respect it deserves, but even Richard wasn't in the same league as ten year old Louis. If
tragedy were all, then Louis XVII would be king in this discussion even if he
never was in life.

Of all the possible explanations, I think our own H.M. Castor
came closest to the truth when she said in her post here: ‘We simply do not usually have the chance to
examine the remains of known individuals from history, to compare the sources
with the bone-hard evidence’. I don’t know the Anglo-Saxon skeletons or
Eqyptian mummies, but we all know Richard III. He’s what ‘1066 And All That’
would call a ‘Memorable King’, and he’s part of the more sensational narrative
of history. The discovery of his bones makes us look at the whole story again
with the sudden certain knowledge that it’s true. We may have known that with
our heads, but here are the bones, here was the man, and it’s true.

Richard III Skeleton - Image credit University of Leicester

But there must be something else. Louis XVI was well known,
so was the Dauphin, they have the same legendary quality of Richard, but still
we’re not stirred to the same degree. Nationalism, of course, Richard was British
and the two Louis are French, but to someone like me there’s no difference and
it’s my own reaction I’m trying to understand.

For me personally there is that one other thing, and it’s
this. Richard III was found under a car park. Not in a box or a gourd where he’d
been specially preserved, but just somewhere dumped and under our feet.
Millions of people have walked over his grave and never even known.

Currently doing the rounds on Twitter - credit unknown

That’s it. That’s where it is. When people say ‘the past is
all around us’ I doubt they’re really referring to kings under car parks, but
that’s surely part of what they mean. As Shakespeare wrote in ‘Hamlet’, ‘Imperious
Caesar, dead and turned to clay, Might stop a hole to keep the wind away.’ So
he might. How many people have breathed this air before us? Whose bodies have
fertilized the soil from which we harvest our vegetables? Do we really think we
stand upon an island certified sterile from that terrible thing we call the
past?

It’s a macabre thought, and may give an unwelcome
significance to the phrase ‘Caesar Salad’, but there’s a truth in it way beyond
the physical. We’re not alone. We didn’t spring up by magic. Millions of people
have been here before us, and what they said and did has defined who we are
now.

That’s history. And as the body of Richard III has reminded
us – it’s true.

13 comments:

Fascinating post. What a sad fate the poor little Dauphin suffered! No wonder people hoped for a happier outcome for him.

I believe that a lot of the excitement about Richard III's discovery is, as you say, because it brings a vivid immediacy to history, but also because authors like Josephine Tey and Sharon Penman have created such a romantic and sympathetic picture of Richard that even though centuries dead he has an ardent band of supporters and groupies - we saw one in action with the televised appeararance of Philippa Langley of the Richard III Society :) And perhaps, too, because we always have a soft spot in our hearts for the underdog.

Such a terrific post. My heart has always ached for the Dauphin and for many years I chose to believe the Baroness Orczy version. Recently I visited the memorials of the Romanovs and although they were responsible for thousands of deaths it's seeing the ages of the children that makes me incredibly sad.

Fabulous post! I hadn't heard of the definitive identification of the remains of Louis XVII or Henri IV, for me they mean as much as the recent Richard III discovery!But I think you're right, the fascination with the Leicester remains has something to do with the fact that they were found under a car park!!! And also I think that someone went purposefully looking for them, and then actually found them!!!

Annis - I really think you've hit it. 'Underdog' is right. The poor little Dauphin was a victim certainly, but Richard was the ultimate underdog, and it makes those of us who believe in his innocence blaze with fury at the injustice. Thank you so much for this insight.

Theresa - Yay!!! Someone else who's read Orczy! I had one of those omnibuses fashionable in the 60's with 4 of the Scarlet Pimpernel novels (including the elusive 'I Will Repay' which I've never found since) and have only recently discovered that there are more. Yes, her style is stilted now, but she inspired me to France and one of these days I just HAVE to have a go at the French Revolution.

Crazy Cris - If you care about the French kings too, then we are of one blood, you and I. I feel particularly badly for Henri IV, actually, because if the Revolutionaries had known their history they'd have known he was a really good king who cared about his people, and did more than anyone to make their lot better. Posthumous injustice, but still injustice.

Adele - thank you. I find it really hard to think about that poor little boy. It's nothing really against the scale of something like the Holocaust, but he was targeted as an individual, as his father's son, for the crime of being born. I can't think of another child in history who's been made to pay in such a way for the crimes of his ancestors.

fascinating post! I knew about young Louis' heart, but had not heard about Henri IV's head and the blood in the gourd. Wow!

I would, however, hesitate to refer to Marie Antoinette as having been murdered...wrongfully convicted and executed, for certain. The Princesse de Lamballe was murdered...semantics, I know, but there was at least a pretense on the side of the Tribunal that she had been given the due process of law...

Thanks, Tess. And you're right - I was emotionally carried away when I used the word 'murdered' of Marie Antoinette, and that's an important distinction with the Princesse de Lamballe. The problem with misusing extremes is that you've nowhere to go when something really deserves them.

I did enjoy this blog - and I do feel sorry for the little Dauphin -and yet, I also thought about the fictional pauper child who would, perhaps, live just as miserable a life, as many did due to the disastrous policies of the Bourbons. Their suffering is not glamourised, iconised, call it what you will, yet just as real. I am I admit only mildly interested in Richard 3rd - yet I loved that image of history beneath us as we walk. And I do approve of Henri 4, who wanted every family in France to have a chicken in his pot on Sunday. He had the right idea.

Lovely post! I do feel more excited about the dauphin than R3, though.I have some of Napoleon's hair - and there is something very strange and special about the real physical presence of a historical figure, in whatever form.

Really insightful post, thank you. I too have read the Baroness Orczy books, and loved the films based on them, and maybe if you want to escape the tragedy that is the sad end of the little Dauphin's story, find a copy of Kim Chesher's 'The Fifth Quarter', I think you'll love it.

I too have been moved by the discovery of Richard III, being a history graduate it is certainly weird to find the almost complete body of a known person, and not just any king but Richard III, and I wish, I really wish people could forget the carpark bit, he's suffered far more than we could have known without examining the bones. I think this discovery means more because we all have an opinion on him, we were taught the Shakespeare version at school, had some dispelled at uni, read books, but to be presented with the reality and the truth, it is a strange feeling. And I hope that historians now review the sources that didn't tally with what we thought we knew, stop thinking we know better and re-evaluate all the source material, because, let's face it, ultimately Richard was not lost - the contemporary sources all told us where he was, and where the church was, but we didn't believe them.

Search the History Girls

The History Girls

The History Girls are a group of best-selling, award-winning writers of historical fiction and non-fiction. Some of us write for young adults, some for fully fledged adults, some for younger readers.

Among us, we cover every period from the Stone Age to World War II. Geographically, our novels will take you from Trondheim to Troy, and the Caribbean to the Wild West, via Venice, Victorian England and Ancient Rome.

Individual, entertaining, sometimes provocative: on this daily blog we'll share our thoughts on writing, research, reviews, and all aspects of our work. We love what we do and we want to talk about it. We hope you'll want to join in!

If you want a History Girl to appear at an event or write an article or review, please contact her via her website (links are all goven on the About Us page)

Owing to an overwhelming amount of Spam, we have had to disable Anonymous Comments. Please do comment but you'll have to Follow us first.

Just scroll down in this right-hand column to under Followers and click Join this Site. Thanks.